tv [untitled] May 23, 2014 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT
about 50 foot treess here about 50 by 50 central square it supports the dome about a 50 foot dome. >> so did you see the appellants pictures rewarding h regarding the current trees. >> yeah. in my office we were upset about that somebody without permission did that. so >> you the church didn't higher to trim the trees. >> i know it was some church member that hacked them. >> we were very upset. >> next question if there's that's the way your teaching of the trees you're the way the
church it taken care of of them how can you have 3 trees. >> on valencia on stevenson was ridiculous those trees have been there since 1995 never a problem i think it happened they didn't consult with me. >> very much arrest. >> thank you, ms. short. >> good evening commissioners carla short department of public works i don't have too much to say we agree with both sides it's usual unusual the two trees were denied by staff because of
the condition those two trees were the microscopes of the department of public works not the church. they are healthy and have structural issues we denied them at the staff level, however, the hearing officer was presented with information about the construction needs and he felt they were suv convinced the trees were in the way of the project so the permit to remove the trees was granted subject to replacement with a anytime 60 inch box tree that's about a large of a tree into this location. so and i'm glad to hear the church wants to put large trees and they're required to if the permit it up held. that's the departments best
effort to mitigate the public but we agree the loss of those two trees is substantial 60 inch trees is a good replacement it won't be 35 to thirty feet tall but depending on the species it would be 20 to 25 feet tall >> can you confirm i asked the tree be removed. >> yes. there that tree was in decline. >> your approved list of trees. >> well, i would submit that the brisbane box on valencia is the fixing us fast growing. >> i have a question so if past when this board has allowed the development to remove trees and promise an "x" amount of trees
and the utility water and cable and phone they're unable to replant those trees has our department suv gone over the plans to make sure that isn't going to happen. >> i know state with conversation the replacement of boxes trees theirs sufficient room and as well as the third it tree. i have to admit the third tree the additional tree their proposing on valencia i don't think we've vested that the third tree would be an additional tree and it seems like every time they do that they can't do it because of a power line and phone so i think - >> yeah. >> i'd like it question answered personally.
>> i'll get back to you on that. >> thank >> thank you. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, we have rebuttal you have 3 minutes. >> so i'd like to first address the access to the garage the proposed garage i add it is here where they're proposing it on valencia street and this is tree number one as referred to in our belief. they say they must cut down but at the original hearing he spoke to them they've looked additional options off stevenson
street they want that because of the parking garage the community you shouldn't losses the trees because of a few center parking spaces. i'd like to address the crane swing we only got this one diagram of where the crane is located. but when telephones up here he showed you another option for the crane in the middle right here. which would provide a swing you know all the way around this way. so i want to say we're not here to be unreasonable so the compromise needs to be made we care about the exultant so it's absolutely necessary to remove one of the trees we would request that the one closer to our building maintain the one
where the area where they want to put the driveway and there's adequate restroom room for the swing of the crane theirs 82 feet ton their side to the tree well, for tree number one and give, you know, 13 feet for the canopy because its 26 feet that's 69 feet of working space and at the end of the day it's a convenience at the could bring them into steve son street or pour the parking lot before we put in the crane and have the mobility of the entire area to build it's only for their
convenience i ask you take into account it's a private entity >> thank you rebuttal from the permit holder. >> i'm an architect i do know as much as they know they contractors say they can't make the cranes work with the trees there, and, secondly, the tree on the east closest to the building i understand they want to keep that but that's the one that's in the curb cut of the criteria so leading down from the graerg also not true that an entrance from steve son would loss spaces an entrance from stevenson doesn't loss spaces there's only reasons on valencia
street through hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction and fees we've studied stevenson but didn't have a loss of spaces. basically, you know, there will be a short time no trees but bend we're down there will be 3 trees and a fourth replacing a diseased trees a short period of time it seems the street is not as nice but we're going to replace those with big trees >> happy to answer any more questions. >> whoever spent hundreds of thousands of dollars designing the property project for the trees were they take into account. >> yes.
>> it sounds like i don't have a good understanding you glazed over why the entrance to the parking can't happen on stevenson. >> it's happening on valencia actually, the main thing when you enter the building the client wants to enter off a nice street instead of a teeny he stevenson we're talking about a lot of traffic. stein son is extremely narrow talking about sunday mongers and overloading the teeny street 0 so from a traffic standpoint we didn't think and some other people in planning agreed it was a lot of load on stevenson it's a tiny narrow student and another thing it used to be the policy when we first designed that that the department would
let you remorseful one tree automatically in the way you have a driveway. apparently that policy is no longer the day but when we got our approved permit no one said heaving john your removing a tree because of the driveway no it's a given maybe it's changed but upper given would be tree removal >> i'm assuming there is no no course to the curb cut. >> your creating a curb cut. >> oh, i don't understand. >> it's a new curb cut but i was saying. >> a new curb cut to replace. >> yeah. it was about 20 feet to the west it replaces the
existing curb cut that will be a curb. >> yeah. >> i see what you're saying and i have nothing further. >> thank you hear from ms. short any rebuttal ms. short? >> carla short i don't have much to add i thought clarify i've been a urban forester for most but i don't know when the plans where we've never had a policy to remove a tree when there's a driveway i'm sure in my 10 years, in fact, when in a basing boss had the prior position we'd try to prevent the removal of a tree we'd get a
return to this body or at the departmental hearing but never a policy a given you can take out a tree for a driveway. >> commissioners the matter it submitted. >> i guess i'll start. never been a huge fan of the fixing us and we've had many, many fixing >> but i'm concerned about i'd like to see did trees replaced with more trees that don't industry the roots or sidewalks but at the same time, i want to make sure they are held accountability to put the 3 trees in there that's my thinking at this point >> actually, i like fixing us
that show us how everybody is different. based on the pragmatic the reasons they've brought forward i expect two but not all the issue the driveway is one i mean, i'll accept his rational for the steel elements i don't accept his concrete - pumping but i'll support the demolition for the 3 trees >> i'm not inclined to go that
way i found the appellants argument were more excelling rather than the convenience and sort of i think rather cavalier altitude u attitude toward the existing healthy trees. i think the compromise that was alluded to by the appellants i might be procedure and appreciate the effort to come to a middle ground but that's - i don't think there's any type of life issues those are issues that could be and should be sort of designed around i think that's sort of the citizen ability that people feel including myself got a lot of money and a lot of talents
should apply them in a manner that doesn't industry what exists and has existed >> can i try. >> sure. >> make a motion to uphold the permit subject to the permit holders supplying information to the department regarding this replacement of the 3 property tree and if there's adequate space to install the 3 trees. >> to clarify the permit at issue is for the removal and replacement the third tree will have to come under a new permit correct me if i am wrong unless the board conditions the
replacement of an additional tree that could be done but not a separate permit issued. >> no. we'll typically add any additional trees that wouldn't necessarily have been required as part of the removal our permit requires we typically add them to the stage u same permit that's okay. from our side. >> okay saying the two uphold the permit for the or more of two trees and a third tree be added and the permit holder verifies with the department that the two replacements trees are able to be planned there. >> so your grarnt the appeal and on the condition there are 3 trees not 2.
>> and that the two proposed that the permit holder verifies with the department they can place the trees there as indicated per there in their brief. >> the department indicated those two trees are indicated but the demolition of 3 trees and the replanting of 4 trees. >> on this permit it's demolition of 2 trees removal of two trees. >> on this permit i'm indicating that's their intention. >> i'm wondering commissioner honda if you condition you want to put 3 trees. >> they just provide evidence that the trees stated in their briefs can be put in.
>> since they've done with with the third tree you want to confirm they work with the department on the location and species. >> just the location to make sure the number of trees. >> okay. so again to try to make sure we're on the same page to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal 3 replacement trees and the pirate holder work with the departments on the location of the alleged itself third additional tree isn't that correct. >> thank you victor.
>> the order specification the minimum of 60 inch box 60 inch box. >> that's correct. >> we have a motion to on the condition there are 3 replacement trees of a minimum 60 feet side and the kidnapping work on the placement of the third tree and commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. no commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. the vote is four to one the permit it upheld with those conditions. >> thank you.
>> okay. so we've already voted to move item 7 and 8 now to item 4 which is the appeal janet curry vs. the city and county of san francisco protesting the issuance on march 12 to k f and development inc. to rereck a single-family dwelling with ground floor area. we'll start with the appellant 7 minutes >> commissioner president lazarus i'm jan curry on live on circle last year avenue adjacent to the subject property i filled the appeal. i outlined accident brief it's
out of character with my neighborhood and will cause harm to me and my neighborhood it's important to state my objective has never been to stop the construction. since moving here my desire is to have a neighbor detection t door not dying rose bushes i've lived next to but a nice house that is the size of neighboring homes will be a welcomed edition. my neighbors and i are observed to a 3 story house. a structure that's a full story tall and more than doubling the square footage the neighborhood we've met b with the developer and the architect and maintained the open communication. our megs mess is consistent f
this development is two large sunny side is a nice invade with smaller homes not a neighborhood to build american people numerous house. mr. mark video is being disingenious when he says he's reduced his project it's to the reduced the size of the overall project. the original proposed 40 plus size this on this lot is ridiculous. last fall i declined miss marry making video the project agreement, however, my mom's health declined and i had to
prioritize to get her care. because of this i missed the discretionary review and i heard filing an appeal would be the appropriate step the planning department made a error they failed to uphold many of their design outlines and my primary conditioner is to address the scale of building projects. the guideline says quote design the scale of the building to be comparable with the height and depth of the surrounding building this project clearly fails and it's a full store taller than the neighbors and it extend beyond the neighborhood. the negative impact of this failure to respect neighborhood
scale is a significant loss of light in the neighboring backyards this will cause on negative impact on my quality of life of me and my neighbors. in addition to the immediate harm caused it's a boarder cause for the neighborhood. the reason san francisco created the guidelines is to insure the visual qualities remain intact quota single building out the context can be diserupt to the neighborhood. this is for the proposed building and while mr. g assured we those are guidelines and presumably not something to be followed it should be noted those guidelines are part of the guidelines and not optimal they've taken into consideration
the time to community to the city and mr. g about their concerns for the neighborhood unfortunately, the developer has demonstrated a disregard for the neighborhood. their attitude has been dismissive and to maximum - my neighbor - i don't have the resources of the gentleman nor any experience working in san francisco planning and working systems i've done everything i can to insure the voices of sunny side are heard therefrom i'm pursuing my last opportunity to scale this down by asking you to place the restrictions to reduce the size so it's
consistent with the scale and character of the sunny side neighborhood thank you for your attention >> okay. thank you we'll hear if the permit holder now. mr. silverman >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners i'm david silverman i'm working with the permit holder. the approved permit is for construction on a single-family home the proximately is gary g he was pro-active in engaging with the neighbors during the design and permitting process. our submittal to the board listed the substantial changes in response to comments by neighborhoods and accident appellants and the department which resulted in total square
footage reduction of the home. the appellant didn't question the discretionary review and the appellant has failed to raise building code issues. the design review is conducted by the planning staff and if t a discretionary review is requested the building permit was approved by the planning department and the department of building inspection and the appellant has not claimed otherwise. the appeal doesn't raise any reason to invalid the permit and mr. g will make a brief presentation. thank you.
don't break it. >> is it working thank you very much. we don't have the screen right now oh. thank you very much. this is 2 flight avenue this historic was a empty lot if he looking at look at the photo basically that the subject site and ms. occurringries house on 92 circular and the 92 freeway this is the highway of the flood right there. this is a view of the front of the house with ms. occurringries building that's at the uphill site